New Questions Emerge In Torture Debate

By: Brent Lang
Topics: Nancy Pelosi

(CBS)

Nancy Pelosi is at the center of a political maelstrom because of her claims that the CIA and the Bush administration misled her about its use of harsh interrogation techniques. Now new questions are being raised that may help to focus some of the attention away from the embattled Speaker of the House and back on the agency and members of the Bush White House.

In an interview yesterday with The Huffington Post, former Senator Bob Graham said that the CIA had also failed to tell him about their use of waterboarding and labeled the agency's records of briefings "suspect." Graham was briefed in his capacity as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The former senator's claims could lend credence to Pelosi's charges that although she was told by the CIA that the administration considered waterboarding legal, the agency failed to inform her that the controversial technique was being employed.

Graham also said that the CIA gave him false information about the number of times he had been briefed on its enhanced interrogation methods. After checking the agency's record of his meetings against his own daily schedule and personal notebook, the ex-Florida senator said that the CIA agreed that no briefings had taken place on three specific dates that it had previously claimed that meetings were held.

Making the ongoing debate about torture murkier still, Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff at the State Department, is claiming that the Bush administration used enhanced interrogation methods to help make a case for the war in Iraq based on a "smoking gun."

In The Washington Note, Wilkerson writes, "what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida."

Wilkerson also alleged that none of the harsh interrogation methods were employed during the president's second term because the administration had been burned by the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures. Consequently, Wilkerson questions former Vice President Dick Cheney's claims that President Obama's abandonment of such methods endangers the country.

All this hasn't silenced Pelosi's sharpest critic, of course. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was particularly vituperative in calling for an investigation into Pelosi's claims. Appearing on ABC Radio, Gingrich called Pelosi's behavior, "despicable, dishonest and vicious."

"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal," Gingrich said. "I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters."

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has also joined in on the Pelosi pile on. In an interview with Fox News, King called on Pelosi to resign and said that her charges against the CIA were "an outrageous accusation."

35 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 35 Comments


by randysanders May 18, 2009 3:16 PM EDT: More bad news for the CIA. Whenever decisions are made concerning the enemy during war time activities, it is the military that makes these decisions, especially when concerning where and how "captured" enemy combatants are concerned. The CIA merely gathers "intel" in the hopes that this info will further the aims of defeating the enemy.

It is possible the CIA played a major role in the "acceptance" of "enhanced interrogation techniques" but the military has its own "play book" when it comes to military campaigns. Of course, the Bush Administration would have made the ultimate decisions when it came to exactly how the miltary campaign would be carried out. I would assume that most high ranking military men would only suggest plans to the Bush Administration for how to wage their "war campaign". No matter what, the way most Nations perceived how America conducted themselves after 9-11 is that America didn't comply with existing "rules of conduct" becoming of a United Nation's member. The enhanced interrogation techniques implemented by the Bush Administration were found to be "forms of torture" by many UN Nations and they have yet to conduct an investigation of the Bush Administration (America).

As for the Debate of Torture, there shouldn't be one if the Bush Administration hadn't broken International Law conceived of by the Geneva Convention after WW2. They entered into a general agreement that the kinds of torture the Nazis used would never be allowed again. They even promised to one another that entering into a World War would be avoided at all costs by member nations. To let radicals who don't even believe in these tenets to "wage war" on any nation is neglecting ones duties for way too long. Since most of the perpetrators of 9-11 died in their "suicidal attack" of the Twin Towers, a more precise approach should have been implemented when trying to stop another attack instead of "invading another country" without proper planning" . The Bush Administration complicated matters by not using small precision teams in their efforts to stop terrorist instead of invading two countries with our own large forces. Instead they planned for large invasion forces. Defense foremost, a good offense uses precision tactics with minimal casualties. The Bush Administration didn't properly conduct themselves in their efforts to stop future terrorist attacks and terrorist activities on our nation or to protect other nations. They didn't even accept sound advice from members of the United nations. No the debate is a futile attempt by Republicans to convince Americans that the Bush Administration was very effective in everything they did. It is obvious to most American that the Bush Administration failed to meet the challenge.; Reply to this comment


by dhutch88 May 17, 2009 6:40 PM EDT: Leon Penatta called Pelosi a flat out liar. He is a Democrate, he ran the CIA. He is calling her a liar. THAT IS FACT>SHE WAS BRIEFED. She accused the Cia of lying and it backfired. Now whe is backtracking. Obama isnt even backing her, they want nothing to do with this.; Reply to this comment


by truth_police May 17, 2009 4:29 PM EDT: Let's separate the disingenuous gasbag, blowhard drivel from sincere meaningful dialogue. Will Boehner, Gingrich, or any GOP partisan support a congressional investigation into the matter? ANSWER: "No" -- they will fight "tooth & nail" against it, because they are NOT interested in the Truth of the matter. This GOP position is utterly inconsistent with their feigned pleas for more evidence, which can now only be construed as simply more insincere, disingenuous gasbag, blowhard drivel (a pretense), dispensed by the GOP for public consumption and invariably responsible for epidemic incidents of E Coli-tainted (fecal matter) food poisoning and contamination. People like Boehner, Gingrich and GOP partisans spread disease like wildfire when they refuse to wash their hands after they make this kind of an "in public" latrine dump. Only when the GOP wholeheartedly supports a congressional investigation will the public be able to discern any GOP sincerity in this matter.; Reply to this comment


by jedi0849 May 17, 2009 1:02 AM EDT: Their the Dems go again. Lying about everything. First this fake Glabal Warming arguement, then this fake Tourture arguement. Pelosi is a "Liar Liar, suit pants on Fire".

What is it about code pink tree hugers being so full of BS.

Also why are all Dem women so disgusting. Michele Obama (looks like a horse) Hilary Clinton (fatest legs ever) and Nancy Pelosi (I almost just threw up in my mouth even thinking about her.)

No wonder these women are all so angry. I would be angry too if I looked like them and try to survive on TV. hahaha; Reply to this comment


by ToolMangler1 May 16, 2009 9:16 PM EDT: The CIA exists to lie, manufacture desirable "evidence", destroy "inconvenient" evidence, and generally do the "scat" work of the president of the u.s..

Of COURSE they LIED! That's what they DO! They are GOOD AT IT!
Posted by p_syrus at 5:24 PM : May 16, 2009

The CIA exists to inform the government and the President of the situation in the world. The USA has a very large and capable armed service to do any necessary actions against a foriegn power. The CIA should not be involved in the 'doing' end of the equation. This allows to much room for illegal actions.; Reply to this comment


by p_syrus May 16, 2009 8:24 PM EDT: The CIA exists to lie, manufacture desirable "evidence", destroy "inconvenient" evidence, and generally do the "scat" work of the president of the u.s..

Of COURSE they LIED! That's what they DO! They are GOOD AT IT!; Reply to this comment


by j_mcdouglas May 16, 2009 8:10 PM EDT: The Party of Torture (Republicans) are desperate to blame Pelosi for their war crimes.

But it's really very silly.

When Pelosi knew Bush was torturing his hardly the point. Plenty of people in the military and the CIA knew they were torturing and didn't say anything until later because like with Pelosi, it was classified until Bush's DOJ revoked their legal opinions in January 2009 on their way out the door.

If Pelosi had squealed she'd have been as much a a Traitor as Scooter Libby is.

The point isn't who knew we were torturing. A LOT OF PEOPLE KNEW. Including about 40% of America (ie Progressives who actually read real news that's worth reading).

The point is who ordered the torture. And who believes in it.

That's Republicans.

Torture is a 100% Republican owned war crime.

But they're desperate to distract from that fact with irrelevant nonsense.; Reply to this comment


by j_mcdouglas May 16, 2009 8:06 PM EDT: It's hilarious that Americans are actually dumb enough to debate whether the CIA would lie to Congress... as if the last 100 years of lying just never happened.

Of course they lied. They lied to help Bush start an illegal war. They lied about the evidence. Even Bush blamed them for it... even after he told Tenet he didn't care if the Iraq evidence was true or not, he just wanted them to claim it was.

Of course they lied.

That's what they do. That's the CIA's job.

Just how stupid are Americans anyway?; Reply to this comment


by woodjd42 May 16, 2009 12:52 PM EDT: She should have left with Clinton, the other "Lying SOB", when he stepped out of office, but stayed when no one really took an interest in what SHE was doing. Instead again, they all focused on Hillary and gave HER hell for another 8 years, and completely ignored the Evil In Their Midst.
Posted by caligula1--2008

Don't forget the two biggest lying crooks of all, bush/chaney. I have chalenaged people before to name one thing they said that turned out to be the truth and so far no one has been able to come up with something.; Reply to this comment


by caligula1--2008 May 16, 2009 12:33 PM EDT: < The CIA reluctantly admits to destroying evidence on torture. What if Pelosi were caught destroying evidence that would automatically give her impeccable credibility? >

I'm sure, given the "Nature of Nancy", that something more or less like this has already happened more than once in her long and highly checkered career in the house. Her constituents don't care though as long as she keeps bringing in that free bacon, government cheese, and increased housing funding for those unable to buy a modest half million dollar home without the government urging banks to start rigging their credit ratings.

She should have left with Clinton, the other "Lying SOB", when he stepped out of office, but stayed when no one really took an interest in what SHE was doing. Instead again, they all focused on Hillary and gave HER hell for another 8 years, and completely ignored the Evil In Their Midst.; Reply to this comment